Pages

Monday, 10 November 2014

It seems ironic that people who argue vaguely that we should all do our part against accelerating carbon pollution will then react to specific efforts by saying “sorry, wrong jurisdiction.” The Canadian government cannot act because climate change is a global problem, so we must wait for all countries to act simultaneously. Nice. And even though we know that carbon pollution goes up as we expand fossil fuel infrastructure, like oil pipelines, the government of B.C. should not try to stop the Kinder Morgan oil pipeline because this is federal jurisdiction. Ditto municipal governments, like that of Vancouver and Burnaby.

We know where this leads. Everyone shirks their responsibility, and we stay on course for a catastrophe.

This is why the municipal elections in Vancouver and Burnaby are important. In both cities, we have municipal governments that understand their responsibility. In both cities, these governments are challenged by opponents who are saying “sorry, not our jurisdiction.”

If you want to stop oil pipeline expansion to metro Vancouver as part of the climate effort we must have, remember to blame yourself next Saturday if you waste your vote so that the pro-pipeline parties attain power.

Wednesday, 15 October 2014

My review of Naomi Klein’s book is now up on the website of the Literary Review of Canada, and will appear in the November 2014 print edition. Please distribute by e-mail, twitter (@MarkJaccard) and Facebook to people who might be interested.Below is my blog that provides some elaboration.Notes to accompany Jaccard review of Klein
book: This Changes Everything

October 14, 2014

What is Klein’s thesis? What is the
contribution of her book? I think she would say that her book demonstrates that
we must change capitalism if we are to succeed against the climate threat:
“system change, not climate change.”

But to convince us of her thesis she needs
to show: (A) why efforts that do not involve profoundly changing capitalism
have not worked and will not work; and (B) why her proposals will work and why
they “change everything about our economic system.”

Friday, 8 August 2014

Please follow the link to get free access to our Commentary in Nature calling for a moratorium on new oil-sands development and transportation projects until better policies and processes are in place.

In 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government asked me
and four other economists if we agreed with its study showing huge costs for
Canada to meet its Kyoto commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2010.
We all publicly agreed, much to the chagrin of the Liberals, NDP and Greens,
who argued that Kyoto was still achievable without crashing the economy. It
wasn’t.

As economists, we knew that the Liberal government of Jean
Chrétien should have implemented effective policies right after signing Kyoto
in 1997. It takes at least a decade to significantly reduce emissions via
energy efficiency, switching to renewables, and perhaps capturing carbon
dioxide from coal plants and oil sands. Each year of delay jacks up costs.

Mr. Harper’s government knew this too. Years later, when
environment minister Peter Kent formally withdrew Canada from Kyoto, he charged
the previous Liberal government with “incompetence” for not enacting necessary
policies in time to meet their target.

Monday, 4 August 2014

During B.C.’s 2013
election campaign, at a conference of energy economists in Washington, D.C., I
spoke about how one of our politicians was promising huge benefits during the
next decades from B.C. liquefied natural gas exports to eastern Asia. These benefits
included lower income taxes, zero provincial debt, and a wealth fund for future
generations. My remarks, however, drew laughter. Later, several people
complimented my humour.

Why this reaction?
The painful reality is that my economist colleagues smirk when people
(especially politicians) assume extreme market imbalances will endure, whereas
real-world evidence consistently proves they won’t. For B.C. Premier Christy
Clark to make promises based on a continuation of today’s extreme difference
between American and eastern Asian gas prices was, to be kind, laughable.

Wednesday, 25 June 2014

Here is the press release for our Nature paper, released June 25, calling for a moratorium on oil sands expansion. This means no loss of current jobs in the oil sands. But it does mean a return to sanity from this selfish rush to accelerate global warming, ocean acidification and ecological destruction - events that will lead to huge economic and social costs according to a just-released study by the World Bank. It does mean that we should not build new pipelines like Keystone XL, Northern Gateway and others.Press release:

A Comment published today in the journal Nature calls for a moratorium on new oil
sands projects in Alberta, Canada due to flaws in how oil sands decisions are
made. The authors are a multidisciplinary group of economists, policy
researchers, ecologists, and decision scientists. They argue that the controversy
around individual pipelines like Keystone XL in the US or Northern Gateway in
Canada overshadows deeper policy flaws, including a failure to adequately address
carbon emissions or the cumulative effect of multiple projects. The authors
point to the contradiction between the doubling of the rate of oil sands production
over the past decade and international commitments made by Canada and the US to
reduce carbon emissions. “The expansion of oil sands development sends a
troubling message to other nations that sit atop large unconventional oil reserves,”
said lead author Wendy Palen, Assistant Professor at Canada’s Simon Fraser
University. “If Canada and the United States continue to move forward with
rapid development of these reserves, both countries send a signal to other
nations that they should disregard the looming climate crisis in favor of
developing the most carbon-intensive fuels in the world.” The authors point out
that oil sands development decisions
(e.g. pipelines, railways, mines, refineries, ports) made in isolation artificially
restrict public discussions. Debate in the news media and during hearings for
individual projects are limited to evaluating the short-term costs and benefits
to the local economy, jobs, environment and health, and do not account for the
long-term and cumulative consequences of multiple projects or of global carbon
pollution. Co-author Joseph Arvai, Professor and Research Chair in
decision science at the University of Calgary, explained the problem. “Individual
projects – a particular refinery or pipeline – may seem reasonable when
evaluated in isolation, but the cumulative impacts of multiple projects create
conflicts with our commitments to biodiversity, aboriginal rights, and
controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Though we have the knowledge and the
tools to do better – to more carefully analyze these tradeoffs and make smarter
long-term choices – so far governments have not used them.” A moratorium would
create the opportunity for Canada and the United States to develop a join North
American road map for energy
development that recognizes the true social and environmental costs of
infrastructure projects as well as account for national and international
commitments to reduce carbon emissions. Anything less “demonstrates
flawed policies and failed leadership”, the authors state.

Contact:

Wendy J. Palen

Department of Biological Sciences

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, BC, Canada

Thomas D. Sisk

Landscape Conservation Initiative

School of Earth Sciences and Environmental Sustainability
Northern Arizona University